Case 2200173/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Mones v Lisa Franklin Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2200173/2021
- Decision date
- 5 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicklin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Mones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs M Mones worked for Lisa Franklin Limited as a part-time receptionist from 3 November 2018 until 17 September 2020. Her automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 was struck out because she did not pay the deposit ordered under Rule 39. The remaining hearing on 9 July 2021 concerned alleged unlawful deductions from wages and holiday pay.
On furlough, the tribunal found that the parties' agreement was contained in the 30 March 2020 furlough letter, under which the Claimant was furloughed from 3 April 2020 and paid by reference to her then flexible Friday working pattern. It rejected the argument that the CJRS Treasury Directions overrode that contractual arrangement. On that basis, the complaint that furlough pay for April to August 2020 was underpaid failed.
The tribunal upheld three unlawful deduction complaints relating to work and payments during the furlough period. It found that £109 was deducted in October 2020 for a locksmith invoice without contractual authority, because the second contract of 31 August 2020 had not been agreed and clause 10 did not authorise the deduction. It also found that a 3-hour induction/training event on 5 September 2020 was mandatory and awarded £11.70, being the 30% top-up from furlough pay, and that 5.5 hours of instructed research work in July and August 2020 were unpaid in part, with £21.45 due. The tribunal held that the July/August work complaint was in time under s.23 ERA 1996.
On holiday pay, the tribunal held that the Claimant's statutory entitlement up to termination exceeded the contractual calculation. Using the statutory approach it calculated holiday pay at £367.96, accepted that £222.30 had already been paid, and found the remaining £145.66 had been unlawfully deducted from final wages. The tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay £287.81 in total, subject to any tax and National Insurance deductions if required.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996 struck out because the deposit ordered under Rule 39 was not paid by the due date; the tribunal did not determine the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | October 2020 deduction for the cost of changing the locks at the Respondent's premises. The tribunal held the deduction was unauthorised because the second contract of 31 August 2020 had not been agreed and clause 10 did not authorise this deduction. | Upheld | — | £109 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Three-hour induction/training event on 5 September 2020. The tribunal found attendance was mandatory and that, because the Claimant was on furlough and had been paid at 70% furlough pay, she was entitled to the additional 30% top-up only. | Upheld | — | £12 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | 5.5 hours of work in July and August 2020, mainly research work requested by the Respondent. The tribunal found the claim was in time under s.23 ERA 1996 and awarded the unpaid top-up at £3.90 per hour. | Upheld | — | £21 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim that furlough pay for April to August 2020 should have been calculated by reference to the CJRS Treasury Directions rather than the 30 March 2020 furlough letter. The tribunal held the furlough letter varied the contract, the Claimant accepted those terms, and there was no contractual basis to increase pay after the event. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £288
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
10 references- Rule 39
- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.76 Coronavirus Act 2020
- Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) Treasury Directions
- Regulations 13 and 13A of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.222(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.222(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.